HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Balkrishan Malhotra
Civil Appeal No. 1391 of 1967
[1971] Supp SCR 951 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 22, 23, 28 and 34(3)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1944-45
01 · Facts of the case
Revenue reopened AY 1944-45 after sanction and served notice on 13 March 1953. On 8 March 1954, the officer computed total income at Rs.60,000 under sections 34/23(4) but did not determine tax. Tax was determined and a demand issued only on 31 March 1954. The authorities rejected the assessee’s time-bar plea; the High Court accepted it.
Source: SCR pp. 951-953 / PDF pp. 1-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The word “assessment” took meaning from context. Although section 23 used “assess” for computing income, its operative provisions also required determination of the sum payable. A 1953 Madras precedent had long read “assessment” in the section 34(3) proviso as including tax determination, no High Court had differed, and Revenue had acted on that settled interpretation. The Court declined to unsettle it, particularly because the 1922 Act had been repealed and the 1961 provisions materially differed.
Source: SCR pp. 953-955 / PDF pp. 3-5
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal failed and was dismissed without an order as to costs, leaving the High Court’s answers and time-bar conclusion in favour of the assessee undisturbed.
Source: SCR pp. 954-955 / PDF pp. 4-5
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on limitation under the historical reassessment provision. The result does not determine when a current assessment order is made or served.
Source: SCR pp. 954-955 / PDF pp. 4-5
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: build a dated chronology separating income computation, tax determination, order finalisation, service and demand. Then apply the exact limitation text for the relevant assessment year. This precedent is useful for statutory context and settled construction, but its own warning against transplanting it to the materially different 1961 Act is decisive.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 953-955 / PDF pp. 3-5
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 5-page SCR report read, separating the editorial headnote from the judicial text.
- Full source read; exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256. Judicial text is unnumbered, so SCR and PDF page pinpoints are used.
Statutory scope
The Court expressly noted that the corresponding 1961 Act provisions were materially different. This decision should not be used as a current limitation rule under the 1961 or 2025 Acts.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.